US vs. a resurgent China

[SeleucusNicator]

This should be engraved in the mind of every agressive commie-fighter. War is over.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but China is no longer Communist and this makes them more dangerous, not less.

 

[allhailIndia]

We stare at them across the Himalayas, across the Andaman Sea and what we see is not re-assuring.

I was also a little skeptical about this Japanese guy given the recent animosity between the two countries. Anyway, I shall try to see things a bit more clearly since both China and the US have been 'enemies' of India once, and are now best buds.

I guess who wins will depend on who "starts" the actual hostilities.

The only possible scenarios are
1. Invasion of Taiwan
2. capture of Spratly Islands for oil

I doubt if the PLA has enough material to risk both at the same time.

Doing an amatuer SWOT analysis; for the PLA

The Strength lies in large numbers, closer to home, no public opinion to worry about.

Weaknesses: Economy may be hit v.v. badly as investors flee; still in the process of modernizing; spares and replacements may be hard to come by if Russia and France don't support.

THe US forces

Strengths: Better weapons, more stable economy, Allies will help(Commonwealth + Japan), likelihood of establishing early air and naval domination

Weakness: Public opinion may wilt after a few 'incidents', operating far from home, re-inforcements difficult, may lose friends in SE Asia.

All-in-all, I think if it is a purely conventional battle fought for limited goals, it will be a close run thing, but the victory will go to the side which has thought out its plan before-hand is not just re-acting to situations as they arise. On the face of it, in the next ten years, it will probably be the US which wins (provided Iraq is somewhat sorted out), after that it will get much more 'dicier'

 

[Gelion]

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but China is no longer Communist and this makes them more dangerous, not less.

I don't know which domination I would preferre more. US-Iraq style or Chinese.....

 

[azzaman333]

if china and USA war, the non-involved countries will win. Anyone who get involved, loses. Nukes will ensure that.

 

[Winner]

I don't know which domination I would preferre more. US-Iraq style or Chinese.....

Well, US under Bush still fight only against the non-western countries. So I'd choose the US.

It's funny how people bash the US for being hypocritical, but on the other hand they praise China, which is IMHO much worse. I see it as stupid, childish behaviour - we don't like what the US is doing, so we stick to anybody who is against them. That means North Korea, Saddam's Iraq, Iran, China...

The virtue is to point out the flaws of US policy without yourself being hypocritical. That's what especially you fail to achieve.

 

[Winner]

The impression I've always had is that the US has only theoretical military dominance, that China would prevail in a real conflict. America has extremely impressive technology & capabilities on paper (the F-22 is now operational! ) but China has SO MANY PEOPLE and such a vast manufacturing capacity that the US could not possibly defeat the Chinese except by using the 6,000 or so nukes we still have operational.

Well, the US plans to reduce its nuclear arsenal to about 2000 operationally deployed warheads by 2012. But that doesn't matter, because:

1) only 368 high-yield warheads are needed to instantly kill 25% of Chinese population (320 million people).

2) China has only about 20 ICBM's, which are very vulnerable to pre-emptive nuclear strike. Their SLBM force in negligible, unable to threaten the US territory. Therefore, China can nuke the US allies in the region, but it is unlikely to hit the US territory itself.

3) Large scale nuclear war is unlikely. I don't agree that China is prepared to use nukes against Asian cities or launch an ICBM's on the US. Use of tactical weapons (and eventual US retaliation against Chinese nuclear forces) is more likely though.

China's determination to annex Taiwan & become a world power at the expense of the US is not in question - the question is, how determined is the US to do anything? For the past few decades, it seems like the US has produced too many pacifists and too many short-sited fools to seriously oppose China in a drawn-out war. In my opinion, the ultimate strength of any nation is its people rather than its theoretical advantage in equipment. And in that respect, the US is full of people who don't care about anything and who above all don't want to die for anything, it's a "paper tiger" so to speak. As the Tokyo Governor pointed out, "I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives" - while America has no national spirit or willingness to sacrifice, the Chinese are getting high on nationalism! And as far as economic containment of the Chinese, well, they've become more capitalist in economic practices and openness, and the US' own system is now working in China's favor. In short, I think that America's people and industry have neither the will nor the ability to engage in a titanic struggle such as that in WWII today. Although I don't put down the regular US army as much as the Tokyo Governor, the PLA has become considerably advanced (HJ-8, Type 98, LOTS of ships, J-10, employs lots of hackers, etc.) and well-trained over the 90s and has millions and millions of draftees to draw from. In any contest of will, I give China an advantage, especially if it was a fighter over Taiwan rather than directly between the US and China - what American would want to volunteer to join the army and die for Taiwan? What politican would want to reinstate the draft? Let's face it, Taiwan's missiles aside, ground forces would ultimately be needed, and the US hates deploying large numbers of ground forces for any length of time.

The pure land based conventional superiority in numbers is irrelevant. As far as I know, there is a huge ocean between the USA and China. Without formidable navy, how do you expect the Chinese to move into the US? Should they swim?

The only country which can become a place of ground clashes between US and China is the South Korea. Even then, the US has huge qualitative superiority in tanks, artillery, even the basic infantry equipment. Combined with the vast US superiority in the Air and the Sea, Chinese groudn forces would be destroyed (of course I don't count now with the use of tactical nuclear warheads on both sides).

Then, I don't think it is fair to point at Iraq and say "look at the US soldiers, they are joke". The "war" in Iraq is not war. It is a peacekeeping mission, hampered by terrorist campaign, utilizing hit&run tactic. There is no unltimate defense against this. In "real" war, US forces proved to be very effective.
Please note, that in any war between China and the US, this "terrorist" or "guerilla" tactic is not usable. The Chinese can't put off their uniforms and fight like the Iraqi insurgents. They'd rely on their tanks and planes, which are obsolete compared with their US counterparts.

What do you people think? Is China developed & advanced economically & militarily to take on America? Will China's nationalism and determination overcome all the weaponry of America in the long run? Did everything I said make you mad, or just 99%?

Just about 80%

I think you're overestimating China's capabilities. It surely pose a danger to the US interests, but it will take decades to threaten them militarily.

 

[Gelion]

Well, US under Bush still fight only against the non-western countries. So I'd choose the US.

"let everyone else die, but us"..... who cares how and why it is being done if we have a nice meal.

It's funny how people bash the US for being hypocritical, but on the other hand they praise China, which is IMHO much worse. I see it as stupid, childish behaviour - we don't like what the US is doing, so we stick to anybody who is against them. That means North Korea, Saddam's Iraq, Iran, China...

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
"Britian has no eternal enemies, not eternal friends, but eternal interests"
If US is doing what goes on against someones national interest it is the right of that country to ally against the US. The question is if those allies bring better benefits than negative consequences. No more romantism, pure realism....
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil"
(well known democratic leader)
This is the language of geopolitics known to US as well as the rest of the world. If you don't speak it you remain forever a child.

The virtue is to point out the flaws of US policy without yourself being hypocritical. That's what especially you fail to achieve.

hypocricy is an enemy of all fanatics in the eyes of people who see their fanatism

 

[storealex]

Using your logic, France should have won the Napoleonic Wars because it had a larger population. On the contrary, Britain with a combination of naval superiority, economic and diplomatic coy, and efficient infrastructure knocked France into submission. Again, all the US has to do is destroy Chinese infrastructure using air and naval superiority.

Ehmm...

Britain, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Spain, Portugal and more knocked France into submission, at that was only after having their butt kicked by France several times.

Britain alone could never have defeated France.

 

[CurtSibling]

Once again, this has been discussed to death. True china has a lot of people....so we just build more bombs..very simple.

And what happens when your civic population gets cold feet at using these bombs...?
A brutal, highly-televised slaughter will not sit well with the American citizenry.
You might be able to stomach it, but many will not...Fact.

There is a reason why the USA is today considered the worlds only superpower...their military.

I consider China and Russia to be still superpowers also.

And a superpower should be able to clamp down on it's conquests...
It is obvious Iraq and Afghanistan are not fully under the boot.
Same as Russia cannot smash the islamists in their Southern Front.

No amount of rhetoric can sway the cold truth of the matter.

China wouldnt win...it wouldnt even be close.

It would take more than 1.4 million men to defeat the reds.
And most of those US troops are spread around the globe, protecting US interests.

.

 

[Winner]

"let everyone else die, but us"..... who cares how and why it is being done if we have a nice meal.

You're an ignorant. China is doing much worse things than the US, the same for Russia. Still, you don't criticize them, in fact you consider them being better than the US, which you accuse of hypocrisy. That's what I am talking about. Then don't mind when I call you a hypocrite

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
"Britian has no eternal enemies, not eternal friends, but eternal interests"
If US is doing what goes on against someones national interest it is the right of that country to ally against the US. The question is if those allies bring better benefits than negative consequences. No more romantism, pure realism....

Now are you talking about realpolitik. A little bit inconsistent, isn't it?

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil"
(well known democratic leader)
This is the language of geopolitics known to US as well as the rest of the world. If you don't speak it you remain forever a child.

You're the last one who should be speaking about realism or geopolitics, because you, my friend, use it only when need it. One day, you're talking like the most liberal person on this planet, the other day you are trying to lecture me about realism. Oh well, at least I now have a better insight into your personality

hypocricy is an enemy of all fanatics in the eyes of people who see their fanatism

That sounds really great from mouth of someone, who believes the US is plotting to destroy Russia

 

[JohnRM]

Old article, we've discussed this before.

 

[Winner]

It would take more than 1.4 million men to defeat the reds.
And most of those US troops are spread around the globe, protecting US interests.
.

Defeat or destroy?

If the US want to defeat China, they can either pull the red trigger or use their navy and airforce to bring down theirs. Then, China is no longer able to exert its power or wage war against the US. Game over.

 

[JohnRM]

^Exactly, when it comes to a war between two nations seperated by an ocean, the question that you must ask yourself (forget nukes for a moment) is "who has the bigger and better naval force?"

I think we know who that is.

 

[CurtSibling]

Defeat or destroy?

If the US want to defeat China, they can either pull the red trigger or use their navy and airforce to bring down theirs. Then, China is no longer able to exert its power or wage war against the US. Game over.

Three points:

1)
Nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used. You assume the other nations in the
area will happily allow radiation in their backyard. Not so. The last few years
have shown that most states are unconcerned about the USA's 'tough talk.'

2)
And experience against the Serbs have show that an Airforce is unable to bring
down a nation by itself, and that is assuming that China has no viable AA defences.
You would be sadly mistaken if you think that aerial losses for the USA would be
non-significant...Also, the impact of losing any major American vessel would be
massive...Are the Americans ready for such defeats...?

I personally don't think so.

3)
The war would not be over in a weekend, and the real victory would go to the
ideology that can keep the war moving to a conclusion. The Americans are bred
on an attitude of expecting to win, and anything other than a total victory for
them would mean citizens baying for blood at the president's door. The concern
for loss of life would also cripple the US ability to wage the 'Barbarossa'-type
slaughter-war that would be required.

Let us not kid outselves...America has not got the stomach for the kind of war
posters are talking about here...Christian thinking has hamstrung any mental
readiness to enact warring on a scale of millions of deaths.

.

 

[CurtSibling]

^Exactly, when it comes to a war between two nations seperated by an ocean, the question that you must ask yourself (forget nukes for a moment) is "who has the bigger and better naval force?"

I think we know who that is.

And who has got the ideology for victory at any human cost,
and does not pull out when their citizens begin to complain?

I think we know who that would be!

...

 

[JohnRM]

Three points:

1)
Nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used. You assume the other nations in the
area will happily allow radiation in their backyard. Not so. The last few years
have shown that most states are unconcerned about the USA's 'tough talk.'

2)
And experience against the Serbs have show that an Airforce is unable to bring
down a nation by itself, and that is assuming that China has no viable AA defences.
You would be sadly mistaken if you think that aerial losses for the USA would be
non-significant...Also, the impact of losing any major American vessel would be
massive...Are the Americans ready for such defeats...?

I personally don't think so.

3)
The war would not be over in a weekend, and the real victory would go to the
ideology that can keep the war moving to a conclusion. The Americans are bred
on an attitude of expecting to win, and anything other than a total victory for
them would mean citizens baying for blood at the president's door. The concern
for loss of life would also cripple the US ability to wage the 'Barbarossa'-type
slaughter-war that would be required.

Let us not kid outselves...America has not got the stomach for the kind of war
posters are talking about here...Christian thinking has hamstrung any mental
readiness to enact warring on a scale of millions of deaths.

The United States does not need to base nuclear weapons on foreign soil to attack China with them. From our posts in Guam, Diego Garcia, and even the continental United States, we can deploy bomber aircraft with the range to deploy air-launched nuclear weapons (AGM-129) with low-observable characteristics to defeat most Chinese early-warning capability.

The United States also has 15 ballistic missile submarines each armed with twenty-four missiles with twelve nuclear warheads each (288 warheads).

Finally, we have our Minute Man III (500) and Peacekeeper (50) Inter-continental ballistic missiles.

And as if that were not enough, every single aircraft carrier and some other capital warships carry tactical nuclear weapons, as well.


EDIT: By the way, do not underestimate the power of the American people. When we get pissed off enough, we destroy entire civilizations.

 

[Winner]

Three points:

1)
Nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used. You assume the other nations in the
area will happily allow radiation in their backyard. Not so. The last few years
have shown that most states are unconcerned about the USA's 'tough talk.'

I do agree that strategic nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used. I am not so sure about the tactical weapons. For China, it would be very difficult to admit defeat. Once the conventional ways how to fight the US navy approaching their shorelines are gone, they may decide they have to use tactical nukes against the carrier groups.

Such a thing won't be let unanswered. It can't be. I think the only adequate US response to tactical nuclear strike against their navy would be to strike against the China's nuclear forces as well as their main airbases and other military instalations with low yield, tactical nuclear weapons. If they fail to bring down the ICBM's, it is possible that the desperate and terrified Chinese leadership can order their launch in fear they are going to lose them.

That is basically how the limited nuclear exchange escalates to a full-scale nuclear war. In theory, of course (thanks non-existent God).

2)
And experience against the Serbs have show that an Airforce is unable to bring
down a nation by itself, and that is assuming that China has no viable AA defences.
You would be sadly mistaken if you think that aerial losses for the USA would be
non-significant...Also, the impact of losing any major American vessel would be
massive...Are the Americans ready for such defeats...?

There is a minor flaw in you assumption. The aerial war against the Yugoslavia was waged in a way to minimalise the "collateral damage" (but sometimes, bombs miss their target and hit, for example, the Chinese embassy ) and its ultimate goal was to drive out Serbian forces from Kosovo.
If the US waged a war with China, they'd most likely target the main ports, airbases, command and communication centers, main transportation hubs and so on. China has relatively old airforce (modern Russian planes are the only buggers until J-10 comes in great numbers). I think China has no means how to stop the Americans from succeeding, though there will be some loses for them.

I personally don't think so.

The Japanese thought likewise

3)
The war would not be over in a weekend, and the real victory would go to the
ideology that can keep the war moving to a conclusion. The Americans are bred
on an attitude of expecting to win, and anything other than a total victory for
them would mean citizens baying for blood at the president's door. The concern
for loss of life would also cripple the US ability to wage the 'Barbarossa'-type
slaughter-war that would be required.

The US won't invade China. That would be insane, as SN just said.

More on the theory:

Wars are usally waged to achieve a certain goal. For the agressor, victory means to achieve his objective, for the defender the victory is to hinder his enemy from reaching it. Victory doesn't have to be a "total" victory as it was in the case of WW2.

I don't think the Americans would try to invade China to end the war, because it is simply impossible. The war would be ended either by a cease-fire agreement after China lost its airforce and navy, or by a large scale nuclear destruction.

Let us not kid outselves...America has not got the stomach for the kind of war
posters are talking about here...Christian thinking has hamstrung any mental
readiness to enact warring on a scale of millions of deaths.

IMHO, it is foolish to underestimate the Americans on the basis of several low intensity wars or involvement in peacekeeping missions. War with China would be something completely different.

The US is unlikely to step back forever. They still think they're a global power and one day, they will set a line they won't cross. Either that, or they return to their isolationism.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

The fact is it would not be a war between the United States and China. It would be a war between the world and China.

China would not win this war.

 

[Gelion]

You're an ignorant. China is doing much worse things than the US, the same for Russia. Still, you don't criticize them, in fact you consider them being better than the US, which you accuse of hypocrisy. That's what I am talking about. Then don't mind when I call you a hypocrite

A wrong doing is a wrong doing no matter who does it, where and for what cause. I don't see how the current policies of "fight first, talk later" help in this world. In 1990 the Cold War was over for all of us and now we see the results: breaking infrstructure, crime, separatism and russofobia around the world. Is that what we were promised? Like it was said "5 more years of reforms and Russia would be a desert". This is not the democracy Russians fought and died for. We want to live and work as much as any other nation on Earth, but as long as there's hatred and instability so masterfully created by your masters noone can be safe.
I critisise and analyse what my country is doing and trying to do the same for China and US. Do you go beyong "good guys and bad guys"?

I don't mind any of you accusations as you said I also consider you a "hopeless case". A fun one nonetheless

Now are you talking about realpolitik. A little bit inconsistent, isn't it?

Well I find it better than fanatism. In fact I have always been a realist trying to hope for "idealism" whenever possible. I dont think I was inconsisted there.

You're the last one who should be speaking about realism or geopolitics, because you, my friend, use it only when need it. One day, you're talking like the most liberal person on this planet, the other day you are trying to lecture me about realism. Oh well, at least I now have a better insight into your personality

My personality is my business. I am trying to express my views, back them up and change them when I realise I was wrong. I think its a bit better than a stubborn semi-nazi position of "we are the best". If you think I am doing that analyse yourself. "Russkies are of course bastards, thus whatever we do to them is justified". The next day you talk about "great role of new democratic reforms in Ukraine" and how "almsot any action by democratic governments is justified" or something like that...... where does your realism end and ideology begin?

That sounds really great from mouth of someone, who believes the US is plotting to destroy Russia

Of course how can a NATO country do such a thing while it is being moved by such ideals! Evil commie pact on the other hand is another matter. Evil evil commies be scared of them! They will return and kick your nato butt! (meant as a joke )
Seriously winner you need some realsim in your enlightened head. Just one example
A year ago Orange revolution was portrayed as "will of the people fighting Moscow-based corruption" (in newspapers). Russia was critisesed for its involvement.
Now it is certain (from those same newspapers) that US and some EU members were behind it. Isn;t THIS hypocricy? If you can lie about that you can lie about anything. Like the real purpose of that anti-missile shield in Poland or US military base relocations. They fit nicely with the plan I outlined. or you seriouly think 150 NATO nuclear bombs "for retaliation" will be used againsr terrorists? Your so-called "enemy number one"?

 

[Winner]

Actually, I believe Huntington was right about the future. The World = the West in our ethnocentric minds. But in fact, China and Islam challenge the West (their common enemy) and, at least China, don't care much about the others.

China's goal is (and it has always been) to achieve hegemony in East Asia.